Mercy, which some of the scholars have referred to as compassion and forgiveness, is a way of pardoning out one’s own will to forgive. It is never forced, and it depends on an individual’s wish to release them, especially when wronged by someone else. When a person wrongs the state, or another person, the victim can decide to have mercy on the offender and forgive them. This has for some time been viewed as against the law of equal treatment. In addition, it has been seen as a threat to justice in a state where democracy and justice are advocated. In this paper, two articles are reviewed in relation to their position on the concept of mercy, forgiveness and punishment. From the literature and experiences, mercy and forgiveness promote internal and external peace, reconciliation, redemptive love, reparation and restoration.

Mercy and forgiveness are more powerful than capital punishment. The essence of mercy is restoration, redemption and reconciliation. This is because; forgiveness releases both the offenders and the victim. The two articles reviewed agree with this concept. Marshall (266) observes that, forgiveness and mercy provide a benefit to the offender and the victim. When a situation of wrong-doing occurs, both the offender and the victim suffer psychologically. Marshall (266) shows that the victim suffers shame and demeanor. They tend to blame themselves for suffering the humiliation. Even though many people see that only the offender suffers, in some instances the victim is affected to a great extent. The victimIn addition, the offender is likely to suffer more harm through punishment. However, since forgiveness is personal, both the offender and the victim benefits from it (Marshall 264; Linda 64).

This brings internal peace. Marshall (260) explains this by citing Matthew 6:14, which states that human beings are to forgive, just because their God forgives. The concept of perfection also comes out clear. Marshall observes that human beings are not perfect. This re-affirms that there is no sense in demonizing a wrong doer. Similarly, Linda (72) echoes this by observing that,

While explaining this, Linda (77) argues if they acknowledge the wrongs they have done, and are remorseful about them, they should be forgiven. In essence, the resources available may not even be enough for punishing every offender.

Some theorists have argued that mercy and forgiveness are condescending, and they tend to treat people as weaklings, and pitiable victims of circumstances (Linda 79). Also, they argue that mercy is unjust, because it treats cases differently. Additionally, they see that mercy is very undemocratic and that it undermines the will of the majority, as expressed in criminal law. In regard to this, Linda (79) argues that, when exercising mercy, caution should be considered in order to make sure that the principles of democracy, responsibility and equality are followed. Linda (85) argues that, when practicing mercy, one ought to be cautious, to make sure that their actions are not incompatible, or contrary to democratic rule. However, mercy and forgiveness ought to be considered as alternatives, instead of depending on punishment. This is because, punishment does not relieve the victim, and it worsens the psychological state of the offender. Marshal is of the contrary opinion. He observes that forgiveness is divine and that it is spiritually inspired (265). He uses several verses to emphasize that human beings should forgive because God forgives. He outlines the benefit of forgiving as preparing oneself for forgiveness. However, the two articles agree in terms of forgiveness and the justice system of the state. Marshall (280) gives the example of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, and Linda (68) gives the same example. The two authors emphasize the implications of forgiveness in a large scale as everlasting peace, reconciliation, restoration and reparation.

The authors, however, disagree on the issue of the implementation of justice and mercy. Marshal takes a hardliner position and emphasizes that forgiveness is a divine action, inspired by divine spiritual belief (263).ness, and forgive the enemy nations. He also advises that the developed countries should forgive the poor countries of their debts. However, Linda takes a different stand. Linda argues that forgiveness needs to be exercised with caution, in order to protect the principles of democracy, responsibility and equality. It is in relation to this, that Linda (98) introduces the concept of good and bad pardons. Linda (98) observes that a pardon should have an ethical basis. This means that, pardoning or forgiving should not apply in all situations, especially in cases of corruption. In essence, these authors disagree because of the basis of their argument. While Marshall argues from a spiritual point of view, Linda argues from a logical pint of view. Marshal emphasizes spiritual concept, while Linda emphasizes reason.

From literature and experiences, my position is that, mercy and forgiveness should be exercised with caution. At a personal level, Marshall’s principles can apply, in order to promote a good relationship with other people. However, at the state, or group level, Linda’s view is the best, in order to protect democracy, equality and responsibility. In regard to mercy and punishment, I strongly opine that mercy is the best, but should only be applied in reasonable cases.

In conclusion, forgiveness and mercy have the nature of restoring, repairing, reconciling and promoting peace. However, they should be exercised with caution, in order to protect the rules of democracy, equality and responsibility. Both Linda ad Marshall support mercy and forgiveness, but it emerges that this should apply only in reasonable cases. However, the two of them disagree in that Marshall argues for forgiveness in all situations, while Linda favors reasonable application of mercy.

Works Cited

Marshall, Christopher, D. “Chapter six: Forgiveness as the consummation of justice”. Beyond retribution: A new testament vision for justice, crime and punishment. Cambridge, UK: William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2001. Print.

Meyer, Ross, L. “The merciful state”. Eds. Sarat Austin and Hussain Nasser. Forgiveness, mercy and clemency. Stanford, UK: Stanford University Press. 2007. Print.